Gun Control Supporters Launch Frenzied Campaign

There's a lot to be said about most people not having a clue what the EXISTING laws are with regard to firearms purchases. Because of that, I don't have any faith in polls about what to do about background checks, etc. because I believe the questions presuppose a level of knowledge which I know not to be there.
 
Got a letter published in the local fishwrap disputing the study ... as I so eloquently put it, "You couldn't get 90 percent of Americans to agree the sky is blue." Yet gun control fanatics will continue to flog us with it, because nobody in the MSM will write a story explaining how the figure was reached ... people, being too lazy to do a second's research, will believe it, even tho it's so far-fetched as to beggar belief ...
 
There's a lot to be said about most people not having a clue what the EXISTING laws are with regard to firearms purchases.

You bet. O'Bama himself mentioned that very thing in his tantrum speech after the defeat of S-649. Said he about UBCs, "Most Americans think that’s already the law". It is this kind of ignorance that gives the 90% sales pitch credence. The less informed the voter, the easier it is for them to get what they want.
 
82% in favor of UBCs.

In theory, 82% of people polled support a generic UBC. However, the devil is in the details. Once any law is written and the details finalized, that 82% is likely a much smaller number.

The poll question is based on emotion and no real consequences on the outcome.
 
The poll they are most likely to refer to is also one which was conducted with a small sample in a relatively small geographic area of the country.

Of all the claptrap that has been mislabled "research" or "study" these polls usually rank among the most unreliable and most easily manipulated.

I'm guessing, (I don't have the poll numbers in, give me a moment or two), that even the relatively uninformed are aware of these inconsistencies.

W
 
It is perfectly legal to purchase a gun from a gun dealer at a gun show without a background check....IF the gun being purchased is not on his FFL book and is part of his personal collection.

Correct, it is perfectly legal to purchase from a dealer without a background check under certain circumstances at a gun shows in most states at most places. So JohnKSa friends are correct.

In most states I can walk into a gun show and a gun from a private party as well without any check. Or I can just browse the classifieds here at TFL to find what I like. I would say it is a given at this point that nearly all criminals who want a gun know this.
 
Hmmmm

Not in CO. as we have some rather strange laws, ever since Columbine. Not that they are enforced in any regular manner.

Personally, I see the frenzy on the part of our opposition as being a direct result of their argument being based on emotion, not reason. Any reasonable person can see, for instance, that the numbers simply do not support their positions. Gun folks are just well, forgive me, wonderfully "dull" when it comes to breaking laws or being violent. We tend to be the folks who still get misty-eyed when the National Anthem is played. We tend to be the folks who get a catch in the throat when we hear that a member of the military has given their life for our nation. We still smile with pride when we see Old Glory fly.

We just do not rub banks, shoot up schools or deal drugs. All of which are the sort that spark the howls for new laws and bans.
 
Correct, it is perfectly legal to purchase from a dealer without a background check under certain circumstances at a gun shows in most states at most places. So JohnKSa friends are correct.
JohnKSA did not say that!
This is what he said!!
I have found that nearly every person I have talked to believes that it is legal to purchase a gun from a dealer at a gunshow without a background check. A person with that belief will almost certainly say they're in favor of expanding background checks without realizing that what they want is already existing law
 
It is perfectly legal to purchase a gun from a gun dealer at a gunshow withou a background check....IF the gun being purchased is not on his FFL book and is part of his personal collection.
That is correct. However, although a dealer is involved, as far as the law is concerned, these are private sales, not dealer sales in any conventional sense.
Correct, it is perfectly legal to purchase from a dealer without a background check under certain circumstances at a gun shows in most states at most places. So JohnKSa friends are correct.
The private sales allowance that makes it legal for licensed persons to sell privately owned firearms in private sales is really the exception to the rule of how dealers must legally operate, it's not the rule.

The people I'm talking about are not correct because what they believe is that things are fundamentally different in terms of the legality of transfers/background checks at gunshows. They aren't. If a sale requires a background check, it still requires a background check if it takes place at a gunshow. If a sale doesn't require a background check at a gunshow it doesn't require a background check anywhere.

The people I'm talking about are under the impression that there is a legal way for commercial/business-related/dealer-stocked firearm sales to take place without a form 4473 and without a background check.

My point about people being generally uninformed about the current laws regarding firearm transfers is unaffected by the fact that licensed persons can sell privately owned firearms in exactly the same manner as unlicensed persons can sell privately owned firearms.

That point is, people who don't understand the existing laws and who are asked basic questions about changing the laws without clarification will likely answer questions about expanding background checks in such a way that their answers only reveal how misinformed they are and won't really provide any useful information about what they think should and shouldn't be legal.
I was offered a Sun Devil ar-15 for $2100.00 and when I gave the dealer my drvers license he refused to take it and asked if I had cash.....or I had to pay a credit card fee. I was in a neighboring state at the time.
If he was attempting to make a private sale across state lines, he was attempting to violate federal law, and you also would have been in violation had you taken him up on his offer.
 
Its 20 miles to the state line.......if thats true then hundreds of guns are being bought and sold illegaly every week.

I've never heard of anyone doing anything about it or even talk about doig anything about it.
 
It is not legal for a private sale of a firearm to take place across a state line without involving a licensed dealer (FFL holder).

It IS legal for an FFL to sell a firearm (with a form 4473 and background check) to a citizen of another state in a face-to-face transaction assuming that the purchase and possession of the firearm in question is legal in both the state where the purchase takes place and the state where the purchaser resides.

So you could legally buy a gun from dealer stock (commercial sale) at the show assuming that both states involved (your state of residence and the state where the show takes place) allow such a transfer and as long as the transaction took place face-to-face and you filled out the 4473 and were background checked.

However, it would not be legal for you to purchase a privately owned gun (i.e. a private sale from a dealer's personal collection or sale from an unlicensed person--NOT a commercial sale from dealer stock) at a gunshow in another state.
I've never heard of anyone doing anything about it or even talk about doig anything about it.
This is another serious issue that needs to be considered in the context of this discussion. If we already have laws regarding firearm transfers that virtually no one knows about and that are virtually unenforced, what is the value of passing more laws of the same type?
 
AlabamaShooter --

Thanks for the link to the poll but the 82% figure was not in favor of UBC, which is how you put it. The question asked was:
Do you favor or oppose expanding background checks on gun buyers?
82% favored expanded checks. That is obviously different than a universal check which would include Dad leaving his collection to his kids.

More fundamentally, I'll second JohnSKa's point that many people out there think it is perfectly legal to go to a gun show and purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer without a background check. That's because the Brady Bunch and the cooperating media have pounded on the "Gun Show Loophole" so much.

I think we should get a friendly member of Congress to introduce a bill called "The Gun Show Loophole Act." It would require all buyers at a gun show purchasing from a firearms dealer to pass a background check. We could put some teeth into it by making it unlawful to lie on the federal form.
 
know for a fact that FFL dealers set up booths with their personal guns....and they may have 100 of them ad sell them without checks. I watched it happen a few weeks ago.
That is legal as long as they abide by the laws that govern the private sale by dealers of their own privately owned firearms. They can't sell new guns that way, and they can't sell guns out of their business stock that way.

The BATF does audit FFL holders on a regular basis, and if they try to shuffle guns out of their business stock so that they can sell them in private sales, theyr'e going to eventually be caught and go to jail.
I know for a fact a FFL dealertried to sell me a sn devil Ar without a background check for cash or a credit card with a fee of 3% in a neighboring state. I handed him my ID and he didn't even glance at it.
That would be an illegal sale, as described.
so what you guys are telling is there is alot of illega sales happening at gunshows by FFl dealers.
Well, the one you described that the dealer tried to involve you in was illegal. I'm sure that other illegal sales do take place, however, I'm not sure why they would only take place at gunshows. If a dealer is crooked, he doesn't really get any protection by only being crooked at a gunshow. In fact, he's probably more likely to get caught by a sting at a gunshow than at his regular place of business.
 
Thats just it.....they dont have a regular place of business. Well other than their garage.

They pay 50 bucks for a table and set up shop on the weekend. They dont operate a real business IMO. IMO they have alot of guns and their old and retired.....they need money. They used guns as an investment and especially now that the markts hot.....their dumping them.

I assure you I'm no idiot. One thing I know is business and money.
 
A standard FFL holder must have some place that they can officially call their business location for the BATFE to come when it is time for an audit. It can be their house/garage.

It is not legal for a standard FFL holder to have an FFL without operating a business. The BATFE will shut them down. They are pretty aggressive about this kind of enforcement.

It's legal for an FFL holder to do most (even all) of his business at gunshows, but that doesn't get them off the hook in terms of having an official business address (even if it's their home) nor in terms of regular audits and maintainin the proper paperwork.

I'm sure that some of them are breaking the law, but if it's true that illegal dealer sales are widespread, that's more evidence against passing new laws, not an argument for passing new ones. If the BATFE isn't enforcing current laws, it doesn't make sense to pass even more laws that won't be enforced.
 
The people I'm talking about are under the impression that there is a legal way for commercial/business-related/dealer-stocked firearm sales to take place without a form 4473 and without a background check.

When the end result is essentially the same it makes little difference in the mechanism that made it happen.


82% favored expanded checks. That is obviously different than a universal check which would include Dad leaving his collection to his kids.

I stand corrected.

As an aside the poll also gave a higher approval rating to the NRA than it did to the Democratic Party. Since gun control is a party platform now that speaks volumes towards the validity of the poll.
 
Here are some recent volleys from said campaign:

From the deep opposition:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/05/there-are-no-absolute-rights.html

Summary: Gun owners are deranged psychotics:

But the idea that any right is unrestricted is totally at odds with history, the law, and reality. And the idea that a group of Americans possesses an absolute “right” to own and keep weapons that can—and in practice do—kill numerous innocent people in seconds, destroying families and communities and tearing at the nation’s collective soul, is barbaric and psychotic. As the old saying goes: if you want to shoot an assault weapon, go enlist.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/03/nra-gun-control-epidemic-violence

Summary: I own a gun too and think that only a few scary conspiracy nutters are the ones behind the push back against "common sense regulation"


The research I did for those stories also reinforced my belief that it's a very vocal minority in America whose affection for the right to bear arms isn't anything to do with hunting or target shooting. It's about arming themselves to the teeth so they can rise up against an oppressive government should the need arise. Because, you know, that kind of thing happens a lot in America. And they're going to be really effective against the most powerful military force in the world, if the need should ever arise.

These are some of the same people who believe 9/11 was an inside job, that the Boston bombings were a "false flag" and that President Obama was born in Kenya. Appropriately enough, the NRA caps off its Saturday night's shenanigans this weekend with a "Stand and Fight" rally featuring Glenn Beck, who happens to be promoting his new anti-gun control polemic.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so frightening. Up until the Newtown, Connecticut massacre, these were voices that many outside the United States fortunately hadn't heard all that often. But I'm actually glad they now have. In the past, when there hadn't been a school shooting for a while, this constituency just felt like a joke; but now, everyone can see that they have the ability to prevent common-sense measures designed to stem the tide of gun violence here in America.
 
When the end result is essentially the same it makes little difference in the mechanism that made it happen.
Flawed logic.

Stealing a gun from a dealer creates an end result that is essentially the same as buying from a dealer. Either way, a gun moves from the dealer's possession to the possession of the person in question. Clearly the mechanism can make a HUGE difference even when the result is the same.
Summary: Gun owners are deranged psychotics:
That's their best strategy--painting us all as deranged psychotics.

Our best strategy is countering with common sense and logic. NOT giving in so that they'll like us better. They won't ever like us better because they have a fundamentally different view of reality than we do.

But that's all neither here nor there. You claimed that the poll results are telling. I stated why I believe they are not and explained why. So far, other than pointing out a limited exception that allows a dealer to sell his privately owned firearms in the same manner as any other citizen can sell privately owned firearms, no one has really addressed the main issue I raised.

I'm not trying to "win the argument", I think it's an important point that needs to be raised and here is why.

If the problem, as I claim, is that the anti-gunners are playing on the ignorance of the general population about existing gun laws, then the solution is doing whatever possible to educate the general population about the gun laws in question.

Giving in because the anti-gunners have successfully made it appear that public opinion is behind their current push for legislation is counter productive and plays into their strategy.
 
Back
Top